News Round Up (Nov. 30)

There's a lot going on, including another recommendation that women consider themselves pre-pregnant, a bunch of abandoned babies, and the government's abstinence recommendations.

The U.S. government is promoting it's abstinence agenda to people up to 29 years old who are unmarried. Considering that up to 90% of people have people ages 20-29 have sex, the abstinence thing seems a little unrealistic. Tyler sent me a very funny article from a SFGate writer lampooning the effort.

It seems like it was abused baby week - babies were flushed down toilets, microwaved, and abandoned at a Long Island Railroad Station. Eric and I were talking about what the alternatives are, and how people could have gotten help. There are laws in most places that preclude prosecution for abandoning your chilld. New York, for example, has an Abandoned Infant Protection Act that allows a parent to leave her baby at a safe place - something undefined in the law. Germany has baby hatches, or baby boxes, which are safe places for people to leave their babies as a last resort.

So there's this whole push for prenatal care, which I am all for. And even care for women who are planning on becoming pregnant, which I think is fabulous. I was recently at a symposium on pregnancy, which I will post another day, but pre-pregnancy care is important. It's also unlikely, considering that that 50% of pregnancies in America are unplanned. If women don't always plan their pregnancies, it's gonna be pretty hard to start taking vitamins in anticipation of pregnancy, or stop smoking or whatever. Which means, then, that women should always consider themselves pre-pregnant (as should their doctors) which is kind of grossing me out (discussed earlier here & here). There's been a lot of commentary on it, including Saletan's round up on the pros & cons of the idea and Bean's opinions. Anyway, the point is that not only is that it's a little condescending and kind of gorss, but it's also absurd because it's not accessible - Medicaid doesn't cover it, and most GPs or OBGYNs don't give that kind of advice. Plus, the majority of the issues, like obesity, are problems that women should address anyway - it seems a little odd to tell women to lose weight ONLY for their fertility, not just for themselves, with their fertility as one of the many factors. Anyway, I'm waiting for our laws and policies to catch up with our health recommendations.

Comments

There's a lot going on, including another recommendation that women consider themselves pre-pregnant, a bunch of abandoned babies, and the government's abstinence recommendations.

The U.S. government is promoting it's abstinence agenda to people up to 29 years old who are unmarried. Considering that up to 90% of people have people ages 20-29 have sex, the abstinence thing seems a little unrealistic. Tyler sent me a very funny article from a SFGate writer lampooning the effort.

It seems like it was abused baby week - babies were flushed down toilets, microwaved, and abandoned at a Long Island Railroad Station. Eric and I were talking about what the alternatives are, and how people could have gotten help. There are laws in most places that preclude prosecution for abandoning your chilld. New York, for example, has an Abandoned Infant Protection Act that allows a parent to leave her baby at a safe place - something undefined in the law. Germany has baby hatches, or baby boxes, which are safe places for people to leave their babies as a last resort.

So there's this whole push for prenatal care, which I am all for. And even care for women who are planning on becoming pregnant, which I think is fabulous. I was recently at a symposium on pregnancy, which I will post another day, but pre-pregnancy care is important. It's also unlikely, considering that that 50% of pregnancies in America are unplanned. If women don't always plan their pregnancies, it's gonna be pretty hard to start taking vitamins in anticipation of pregnancy, or stop smoking or whatever. Which means, then, that women should always consider themselves pre-pregnant (as should their doctors) which is kind of grossing me out (discussed earlier here & here). There's been a lot of commentary on it, including Saletan's round up on the pros & cons of the idea and Bean's opinions. Anyway, the point is that not only is that it's a little condescending and kind of gorss, but it's also absurd because it's not accessible - Medicaid doesn't cover it, and most GPs or OBGYNs don't give that kind of advice. Plus, the majority of the issues, like obesity, are problems that women should address anyway - it seems a little odd to tell women to lose weight ONLY for their fertility, not just for themselves, with their fertility as one of the many factors. Anyway, I'm waiting for our laws and policies to catch up with our health recommendations.